Doubts About Palin a Factor in NY Times Poll

As Big Tent Democrat wrote here, the New York Times/CBS poll shows Obama regaining the momentum in the presidential race and leading John McCain.

It's not just the economy. It's also McCain's opportunistic pick of Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice President. A majority of those polled (pdf)find her unqualified and 3/4 of them believe she was selected primarily to help McCain win.

More than half of registered voters do not think she is prepared for the job of Vice President, and a majority express concern about Palin being able to take over the presidency, if necessary. Even supporters of John McCain cite “inexperience” as what they like least about her. Palin’s unfavorable rating is also up eight points from last week.


Most voters think McCain chose Palin as his running mate to help him win in November; just one in five say it was because she was well-qualified for the job. On the other hand, 57% of voters think Joe Biden was picked by Barack Obama because he is well-qualified. Even voters backing the Republican ticket - 53% - say that the choice of Palin was to help McCain win the election.

Palin's buzz is fading with all but the hard core Republican base:

White evangelicals who are backing McCain are especially excited about the choice of Palin – 78% say they are enthusiastic.

Compare the views of why Palin was picked as opposed to Biden:

  • Well qualified:
    Biden: 57%
    Palin: 17%
  • Help win the election
    Biden: 31%
    Palin: 75%

As reported in other polls today, this one finds women are increasingly behind Obama.

Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago.

....Forty-eight percent of Clinton voters say they have an unfavorable view of Palin, while 20 percent view her positively.

She's dimming. The bloom is off the rose. Soon, Palin will be a footnote in history, exposed for what she was: John McCain's Hail Mary pass.

John McCain couldn't win this election without Sarah Palin. It's becoming increasingly evident he won't win it with her either.

The media is doing its job, as are the blogs. The door will close on Sarah Palin, especially the one into the nation's second highest office.

< The Game Changer: Economy Pushes Obama To 5 Point Lead In NYTimes Poll | The Polls - 9/18 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Of course she was selected to help McCain (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 10:51:22 PM EST

    And she isn't running for President.  She is running for Vice President.

    and he's 72 with 4 bouts of cancer behind him (3.25 / 4) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM EST
    She shouldn't be in that position.

    Haven't you reached your limit of 4 pro-McCain-Palin posts today?


    I am not pro-McCain/Palin (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:03:21 PM EST
    I am pro-honesty and objectivity.

    Those are liberal values.


    I wish I were in the press corps (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:08:43 PM EST
    I would make the election about:

    Cancer survival rates in your 70s(McCain)
    Black Liberation Theology(Obama)
    Unusual Baby Names(Palin)
    Stricter Marijuana Laws(Biden)...

    This way all the FRIVILOUS bullcrap would take center stage, as SOOOOOO many people want it to, while the economy tanks,  Galveston joins the ranks of New Orleans, and waiting with baited breath for the next bridge to collapse killing a bunch of Americans who are minding their own business.


    Uh... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:24:37 PM EST
    One of those things is not like the others.  

    Brillo (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:27:33 PM EST
    ur right.  the cancer thing is NOT frivolous.  i am just disappointed that someone's medical condition (which i can kinda understand) becoming part of the dialogue, but shouldn't be THAT big of a factor.

    No one was born to live forever.  Surely MANY of us have had in our lives healthy, robust people drop dead on us for no reason.  For goodness sakes look what happened to our beloved Congresswoamn Stephanie Tubbs-Jones?  She was 14 years McCain's junior.

    Sorry to come off like jerk on the cancer thing.  Thanks for pointing it out brillo.


    yup. people can die at any age (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:29:42 PM EST
    which is why a VP should have some substance.

    I was... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:43:29 PM EST
    Actually talking about Biden's position on drug laws.  You know, cause it's an actual policy position/issue (and one I really disagree with Biden on).

    I've also opposed Biden on drug and other (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:53:31 PM EST
    crimes. But as VP, he won't be controlling the Justice Department or drafting new crime bills. An Obama AG is going to be light years better than a McCain AG and the war on drugs will be funded and prosecuted with much more vigor in a McCain Adminstration. So, yes, Biden was a drug warrior, but McCain and the Republicans are Generals in the war by comparison.

    So Biden shouldn't be (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:18:44 AM EST
    thought about in the top position, either?

    Having trouble following the logic of this thread.


    Even excluding any heightened risks (none / 0) (#56)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:22:14 AM EST
    to McCain from two separate incidences of malignant cancers,  statistically McCain is 10 * more likely to die in office than Obama.

    Unlike Palin, Biden won't possibly be president (none / 0) (#50)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:42:40 AM EST
    is the thought here.

    That's what my note was trying to say (none / 0) (#73)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:38:00 PM EST
    but too subtly :-)

    I *kinda* (none / 0) (#31)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:47:05 PM EST
    thought that actually, but being that when I was 18 I worked in a dr's office that dealt with a lot of cancer patients, i got mad at myself for making that comment.

    The economy and the hurricanes (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:11:48 AM EST
    are putting a lot of stink on the GOP and McCain/Palin right now.

    Her gee-whiz fizz and McCain's blissful ignorance are in STARK contrast to the urgency of what's happening this week.

    On Wall Street tax dollars are being used to bail-out rapacious lenders; and on Main Street, which is literally underwater, FEMA still hasn't restored basic services to the nation's 4th largest city. (i.e. Today, 1.5 million Houston residents are still w/o electricity.)


    Agreed. If Obama can't win it (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:22:18 AM EST
    in this, excuse the expression, perfect storm of both nature and man collapsing around us -- then he couldn't win it, no matter what.  

    Now I have to go pray that even worse doesn't happen.  I begin to understand how my ancestors must have felt after the market crash, during the Depression, and some were in the Dust Bowl, too.


    "Perfect Storm" is a perfect term (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:54:08 AM EST
    to characterize our concurrent economic and environmental disasters. I'm all about boiling it down to fit on a bumper-sticker at this point.

    The beauty of this "Perfect Storm" is the elegance of the potential SOLUTION: ameliorate the ECONOMIC CRISIS by creating millions of green jobs to ameliorate the CLIMATE CRISIS. Bonus points: it's good for NATIONAL SECURITY because it decreases dependence on foreign oil. (We can thank Hillary for articulating this particular solution.)

    Obama will be in a jam if he can't take control of these intersecting issues - and frame them in a stead-fast and succinct manner within the next few weeks.

    *Jeralyn, sorry to stray OT, but I really think this is why the McCain/Palin ticket is going South right now (so to speak). It provides Obama with his last best chance to salvage the Democratic agenda.


    Arent ALL VP's selected to help them win? (none / 0) (#53)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:45:50 AM EST
    I think she'll wind up. . . (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 10:55:01 PM EST
    turning off whatever is left of the secular Republican Party as well.  I had a financial services guy -- two time Bush voter -- stomping around the office the other week ranting "is it too effing much to effing have some effing people who can effing run the effing country for once?"  That was shortly after the Palin announcement.

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:03:42 PM EST
    That's pretty much where my Wall Street crew is at this point.  It's as if the Republican Party finally admitted "okay, we really don't take this thing very seriously."

    So, do they want a Dem stuck with this (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:23:28 AM EST
    mess -- doomed to be a one-termer and blamed for it all?  That would explain a lot about the GOP ticket.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:33:58 AM EST
    Good question, but I don't know anyone at all who is thinking that way.

    wow (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    Secular republicans who are concerned about the economy and governing skills?  Did you get a tissue sample?

    We might be able to make a vaccine and save the others.


    Jer. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:00:46 PM EST
    you should blog about McCain's latest Gaffe

    he had no clue who the leader of spain was, its spreading like crazy in the Spanish press

    just did, please comment on it there (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:32:45 PM EST

    this topic is about the poll.


    If Obama wins (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by TomStewart on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:06:57 PM EST
    I wonder if we'll see the unreasoning viciousness that the repubs had toward Bill Clinton? I wonder if Palin will skate, with the repubs blaming McCain and holding up Palin as the blameless lamb, all the while readying her for her own run at the presidency in 2012?

    I think the GOP will double down in anger and fight, scream and kick at everything Obama says and does, whether it benefits the country or not. Unless the dems win enough seats, or the repubs start electing someone other than the firebreathers we've been seeing for the last 20 years, I think we'll see partisanship that will dwarf that has come before.

    Yes indeed! The Republicans have that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:35:07 PM EST
    attribute perfected. But, it would be difficult to surpass the multitudinous ways in which they acted with viciousness toward President Clinton. They started their fabricated scandals and secret investigations before he was even sworn into office.

    I don't doubt that they would use lots of despicable tactics to undermine an Obama administration, but they would really have to be highly creative to exceed the level of abuse they directed at Clinton. I read a couple of books describing it in detail; it was beyond what I'd previously realized.


    How the media (none / 0) (#24)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:32:12 PM EST
    responds to that - whether they report it accurately or not - will be what makes the difference in how effective those GOP tantrums will be.

    The fact that they're starting to call out McCain-Palin on their lies now suggests that some critical portion of people in the media are finally waking up and remembering they're supposed to be watchdogs not lapdogs. So maybe the fighting and kicking and screaming might not do them the good it has in the past, and might end up hurting them, the way McCain-Palin's overreach has been hurting them this week.


    Actually, Obama finally got a decent ad up (none / 0) (#51)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:45:40 AM EST
    and DREW ATTENTION to the media reports - and it was very effective.  He could do the same with the actual lies, show them instead of just complaining.

    Donald, can you post a copy of (none / 0) (#70)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    your letter for us here at TL, in case some of us miss it in the NYTimes? You said they were printing it on Friday or Monday right? Must have been a great letter, so congrats. Look forward to reading it. I hope you were more civil toward the NYTimes editors than you were in your above comment...just saying.

    Good on you but (none / 0) (#71)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:42:49 PM EST
    I'm not you and do not feel the way you do, and we are not any kind of solid kind of grouping here.  Obama draws some people intensely, leaves others unaffected, while others don't cotton to him.

      Some of us will vote Dem because we are following what seems the better ticket for our philosophies; others will not vote Dem this time because they don't know what Obama stands for and don't trust him and/or feel the DNC is not 'democratic' and needs a huge change.

      Obama got $66 million this month and certainly can afford an ad to millions of voters illustrating the lies, can't he.

      Moreover, for an allegedly post-partisan candidate of "new politics" he advocated this week that his supporters

    "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

      No thanks.  

    Not only that (none / 0) (#72)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:08:05 PM EST
    but your way is only ONE way of adding to any perceived common cause.  I did a webpage that highlighted a Wasilla citizen's complaints against Palin's time as Mayor and as Governor, and that's received 250,000+ separate requests for viewing from 225,000 unique host servers.  That's people actively asking for a page to read it.  

      Of those, many (probably most) send it on to others.  I certainly get a lot of email on it, some of it friendly, some of it definitely not.  Wall St. Journal considered it possibly the origin of the viral letter's heavy-distribution (but it wasn't -- just one of them).

      For me, it was only a place to start exploring the complaints and my initial interest was because it also included a few positive statements (even if grudging), unlike pure-advocacy pieces pro or con, since I always prefer to know more than what some invested stranger wants to tell me.  It's now expanded to as many articles as I can find pro and con but mainly ones that have some balance to them.  And it also includes rebuttals to the more searingly-ignorant rumor-ridden pieces that go around in the same way as the Muslim pieces do re Obama.  I'm opposed to that on both sides.

      Since I am not pro-Obama for many reasons but I retain Democratic values, this is the only way I care to 'contribute,' and I'd say his campaign should be quite happy.  Anne Kilkenny is a very engaged/active Democrat.

      By the way, if you come on like gangbusters telling less-interested Democrats they must do this or that
    you will alienate those away from the Obama vote because many are hanging in there, on a thread, to vote Democrat.

      While Obama may want you all to get in your neighbor's 'face,' and 'argue' with them, as he says, that alone can really turn people off.  

      He is a scarily living contradiction at almost anytime, and there are just quite a few who will not automatically vote for him because of his alternating post-partisan and virulent-partisan sides.  He's too often like two different people.

      I cannot caution Obama supporters enough about this aggressive follower-syndrome that you would impose on others.  


    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Nevart on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:19:49 PM EST
    Funny how last week on this blog so many commentators were saying Obama was losing because he didn't pick Hillary and Palin was going to pick off all those women voters...

    Of course, by next week, God only knows what might happen and Obama's numbers could be headed down again.  Though I doubt it, absent some enormous gaffe or a crappy performance in the debates.  Or if Bush actually finds bin Laden and whacks him.

    Now that the press has turned an objective eye on the "straight talkin'" McCain and felt the vomit rise within them because of all his lies, his usual propensity towards gaffes of the sort of "the fudamentals of the economy are strong" are actually getting some play.

    And Palin is paling, as was inevitable, as more of her peculiarities come to the fore.  Not to mention that stunning portrait of her by Tina Fey.

    Not... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:36:32 PM EST
    The same commenter's.  

    There has a been a distinct (and somewhat amusing) lack of acknowledgment of exactly how badly Palin is now tanking with the public from certain people around here.  People who were just certain last week that so much as the slightest mention of her would destroy Obama's campaign, so great the backlash/sympathy vote would be.  

    Two weeks of attacks on Palin, some horrible and sexist and trashy, others totally above board and issues driven.  No backlash.  No sympathy votes.  Just a distinct... "Ewww" from people as they got to know her, and a definite bad impression of McCain for choosing her.  


    Well, I certainly have not been ignoring her (3.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:46:12 PM EST
    I've harped on her because she's a threat. If McCain wins, it's because she galvanized the radical right and you can bet they will call in their chit. That chit may well be control over Supreme Court nominations. More on that here.

    McCain's poor judgment in picking her is astounding. As I wrote early on:

    Voters are left with only two conclusions: Either McCain didn't vet Palin which is shockingly, near-criminally negligent or he did vet Palin and still picked her, which has got to be the most desperate, jaw-droppingly reckless political move in decades.

    It doesn't seem that they did a very thorough job (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:53:39 AM EST
    at vetting, not because of her lack of experience, because they surely knew that; one of the main reasons I think that is because so many Republicans in Alaska were shocked that she was selected.

    Former House Speaker, Gail Phillips, a Republican, who indicated that she had contacts throughout the Republican party, was one of the people who was really shocked. From the Anchorage Daily News, upon hearing about Palin's selection, she exclaimed to her husband, "This can't be happening, because his advance team didn't come to Alaska to check her out."

    That was a familiar refrain throughout Alaska from what I can gather. Now, I know he tried to keep it under wraps, but it would seem that, at least, several people would know, even if they disclosed it afterward. I haven't read all of the news on Palin, but I haven't read about anybody revealing that they were contacted.

    I think that he picked her for several reasons, one of which is that it would galvanize the support (money) from the Religious Right leaders who have been instrumental in funding campaigns in the past. Also, it would energize that faction's on-the-ground people. Also, they're obviously using gender politics to win some of Senator Clinton's former voters as well as Independent women. There are many more reasons, but it's my view that McCain cared more about his campaign than he did for his country, because I don't think that she'd be prepared to become president if required.

    I'm a feminist, but I'm realistic when it comes to who is in charge of running the country. Hillary Clinton was abundantly qualified to be the POTUS, and I strongly supported her. I have come concerns about Obama's readiness for the job, but between the two candidacies, I'd support Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin.


    I don't remember (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:20:09 AM EST
    anyone hereabouts saying that "Obama was losing because he didn't pick Hillary and Palin was going to pick off all those women voters..."

    What I recall is many people pointing out that in this campaign in this Democratic year a Democratic nominee should be out in front by 15-20 points while observing that the choice of Hilary as his running mate would have ensured that lead.  Instead, selecting Biden has resulted in a toss-up election.

    While I suppose there are a few women who could be 'picked off' by the choice of Palin, far fewer women will vote for her 'just because she's a woman' than AAs seem willing to vote for Obama just because he's black.  Projections are for 95%!  Imagine if 95% of women had voted for Hillary...  

    No, I can't either.

    And BTW, Hillary's voters weren't all women and the McCain/Palin campaign is about appealing to Independent and Republican men AND women who voted for Hillary because of her populist, problem-solving campaign.  And they will 'pick off' more men than women...especially white men.

    Now, the economic news should be a game changer for Obama.  We'll see if he can capitalize on it.  Seems to be picking up the pace a bit on the number one issue...finally...


    The economy IS highlighting how Bush John is (none / 0) (#52)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:52:39 AM EST
    But Palin still brings zeal to the ballot box and that'll be the main problem as we've seen with the Dem polls which fell  from 15-22 pts ahead in July/August and down to 3 pts ahead in September.  That's the lower-ticket-voting we'd been pretty sure was a solid vote.

      Now everything's up in the air, except that realization of how horrific the economy is with almost zero regulation of it and McCain still cluelessly for almost no regulation of it (or anything where regulation is needed) means he just looks ridiculously ineffective.



    Obama will not do as bad as Bush in 2004 (none / 0) (#25)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:32:30 PM EST
    and after the debate his numbers went down...then they bounced back up again.

    As long as the economy is the issue, be may win this thing.


    The risk of Palin (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:27:04 PM EST
    has always been that she is going to generate a feedback loop.

    If her polls did well then she was a genius pick,

    If her polls do poorly then she will be percieved as an albatros and a sign of poor judgment.

    Since horse race politics is insanely result oriented (Gore loses by 500 votes and therefore ran a terrible campaing, Rove, however is hailed as a genius for his 500 vote win) poor results result in poor reviews.

    If Palins numbers tank anymore it way well become the next story and that will truly be death for the McCain campaign.

    insightful comment. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:31:20 PM EST
    So much of this commentary (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:56:02 PM EST
    just refuses to meet the obvious points:

    1. McCain's poll numbers were fine until just a couple of days ago. His post convention bounce had faded much less than usual. If all the attacks on Palin had had such a terrible effect on McCain's own numbers, shouldn't they have shown up before a couple of days ago? Isn't it just possible that even if the attacks on Palin hurt her numbers, the viciousness of those attacks also either harmed Obama directly because he was seen as in part responsible for them, or that Palin and/or McCain was also getting some sympathy vote over them? Again, how explain the fact that McCain's numbers didn't really go down, or at least not nearly as much as in virtually every other convention bounce?

    2. What has happened in the past few days that might actually be relevant to McCain's declining numbers? Anyone? Anyone? How about perhaps the worst financial crisis since the Depression? Think that might have something to do with it? Yes, I think that Obama's great persuasive powers, combined, of course, with the worst financial crisis in generations and the public's perception that the Republicans are primarily responsible for it, might be enough to win him a good number of votes. I would, in fact, certainly hope so.

    McCain's bounce faded slower than usual (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:58:56 AM EST
    due to

    1) initial "buzz" around Palin
    and more importantly,

    2) he didn't have Obama naming his VP and having the Dem. convention immediately following his.  

    The order of the conventions was always going to step on the Democratic nominees bounce.


    this poll was taken before the crisis (3.50 / 2) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:56:55 PM EST
    it specifically says so.

    If this poll was taken (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:01:03 AM EST
    before the crisis, then suffice it to say that its results are inconsistent with either the Gallup or the Ras tracking polls, which showed McCain's convention bounce still largely intact.

    No it's not (3.50 / 2) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:11:46 AM EST
    We reported on all the other polls today that show similar findings. They were all taken before Monday.

    PPP Virginia

    CNN/Time on Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Ohio  (Only Indiana was different)



    Apples and oranges (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:22:06 AM EST
    the entire point of tracking polls is to make clear how events play out in the course of the election.

    State polls taken at times that don't track relevant events (e.g., before each convention, after each convention, and the days following it when the bounces are supposed to fade away) are not going to be meaningful. This is likewise true for national polls that don't track those events.


    The poll says it was (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    conducted between Sept 12 and Sept 16. Lehman Brothers had already declared bankruptcy on Sept 15. How was this poll conducted entirely before the crisis?

    yes, you are right about (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:19:44 AM EST
    the New York Times poll being 9/12 to 9/16. The other polls I cited are before. The point being, that it's not the only poll to show Obama retaking the lead.

    We all knew these crises were (none / 0) (#48)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:07:29 AM EST
    coming down the pike before they hit us full-square. I imagine this fore-knowledge affected the results of the poll under discussion.

    Circumstances on the ground have now cast a PALL on Palin and McCain, but more so on Palin. Her  unknown/newcomer status has begun to look troublesome in this light.


    If A Majority Think Palin Is Unqualified (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by john horse on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:09:10 AM EST
    then what does that say about the person who selected her for that position?

    Another major problem for Palin is that she looks like she has something to hide by her coverup of the Troopergate investigation.    

    So Goes Alaska (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    I have been keeping my eye on Alaskan bloggers and Anchorage Daily News and I can tell you that from what I've read, the Palin train has derailed there. Even bloggers who were initially supportive of Palin have now turned against her due to her shape shifting on the Troopergate affair. Two things seem to have turned the tide: the fact that her spokeswoman, who seems to be universally despised, attacked and smeared Walt Monegan, who appears to be universally beloved, and that the McCain people are spearheading the campaign to have the investigation either delayed or quashed. As one blogger put it, this must stink really bad if they are trying this hard to bury it.

    hm (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    Chuck Hagel has said its a stretch to think she's qualified.  He also dismissed her foreign policy "experience".

    wow, really? (none / 0) (#54)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:01:01 AM EST
    gosh, who'da guessed?

    3/4 of them believe she was selected primarily to help McCain win.

    what did they do, find the dumbest people on the planet, and poll them?

    oh, wait, sorry, this is the nyt's, the dumbest newspaper on planet earth. that explains it.

    i could be wrong, stop me if you've heard this one before, but i think one's running mate is selected, in part, because you think they can help you win.

    based on that alone, trash this poll; any results are tainted by the shear, utter stupidity of the respondents.

    You say they are selected in "part" (none / 0) (#60)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:00:28 AM EST
    The poll question they answered was "primarily" to help McCain win.

    Case closed.


    oh gosh, how silly of me! (none / 0) (#67)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    how about "in large part"? feel better now? good, go back to your knitting.

    idiotic question, stupid pollers, stupidest newspaper on the planet (possibly in the entire solar system), and the dumbest respondents.

    i leave anything out for you?

    case closed.

    have a lovely day.


    well (none / 0) (#64)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:55:04 AM EST
    Well, there is a difference between selecting someone for governing ability and their electibility.  The poll tilts that way because few recognize her governing abilility. They are entitled to their opinion about her.  

    I know a republican who thinks she is great politics but a poor choice to lead the country so it sounds about right to me.


    I don't like and never have liked..... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kefa on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:21:10 AM EST
    the media being in charge of who gets the breaks.
    We as a party are laughing now because they are doing our bidding, we are sleeping with the devil and they are doing ill and so are we. I for one do not like it, win or lose. I as a liberal for 54 years feel dirty.

    Bloom Off the Rose? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:19:01 AM EST
    I'd like to think the bloom is coming off the rose, but I'm not so sure. Nevertheless, let's hope Jeralyn is right.

    More Lies, right now in Iowa on CNN, McPain, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Blowback on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    Sarah said just a few minutes ago, said she will say "I did, instead of I WILL", referring to Obama. Then she said she will put the "government checkbook online as I did in Alaska."

    duh, Obama http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3562274

    Well, Obama/Coburn already sponsored this exact kind of bill in the US Senate!

    McSame on CNN Live right now.

    since gov. palin (none / 0) (#68)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    is on the ticket as veep, it's pretty damn unlikely she'll be doing much of anything, certainly not forwarding proposed legislation to congress.

    or, is this her subtle way of telling us she thinks mccain's going to die shortly after being inaugurated, ala' william henry harrison?